And these are those who received their inheritance. The most correct view concerning the manner in which the land was divided is that of Raavad (cited in Shittah Mekubbetzet, Bava Batra 117b). He writes: “Know and understand that the Land of Israel was divided among the twelve tribes by lot and through the Urim and Thummim. This is the question they asked (ibid., 122a): ‘Was it divided among the tribes, or according to the number of individuals?’ They were asking about the division by lot, and the answer is derived from ‘whether numerous or few’ (Numbers 26:56): whether a tribe was numerous or small, its territory was determined by lot. For the families, however, they did not resort to a lottery,” etc. “Another difficulty remains: If the portions were unequal, how could they have been divided by lot? Before the lottery, how was it known to whom a larger portion should be given and to whom a smaller one? What would happen if the lot assigned a large portion to a small tribe? A lottery is possible only among portions that are equal—whether equal in area, monetary value, or quality of land. We answer that only the boundaries of the regions were written upon the lots. For example, just as one might designate the territory extending from a particular boundary as the province of Catalonia and that extending from another boundary as the province of Provence, so they wrote the regions upon the lots and placed them in the urn. Whichever region a tribe drew was the region in which it received its portion; within that region, it was given more or less according to its population. You may know that this is so from the fact that the lots of Judah and the children of Joseph were drawn before the remaining tribes’ territories were apportioned, and portions belonging to some of the other tribes were located within their territories. You thus learn that the lots determined only the regional boundaries.” These are his words. You see that his opinion accords with that of Abarbanel: the lottery determined only the general regions. Once it was known within which region a tribe would receive its portion, Joshua and the heads of the tribal fathers apportioned the land according to population. A tribe with more people received a larger portion, and this was determined not by lot but by the judgment of those who apportioned the land. See Raavad’s extensive discussion there. Shittah Mekubbetzet (Bava Batra 121a) also cites Raavad as raising an objection to his own view from the verse, “You shall inherit the land by lot according to your families” (Numbers 33:54), and as inclining to distinguish between two lotteries: the division among the members of each tribe was conducted through a second lottery without the Urim and Thummim. This conclusion, however, is not necessary, for “according to your families” may refer to what follows—“to the numerous you shall give more”—meaning that first, “you shall inherit the land by lot,” to determine the tribes’ regional boundaries, and afterward, “you shall inherit it according to your families; to the numerous you shall give more,” through an apportionment made by judgment. In my opinion, Rashi also follows this approach. Commenting on the verse, “Among these shall the land be divided as an inheritance according to the number of names; to the numerous you shall give a larger inheritance,” etc. (Numbers 26:53–54), Rashi explains: “A tribe with a large population was given a large portion. Although the portions were unequal, for everything was apportioned according to the tribe’s population, the portions were assigned only by lot; and the lot operated through Divine inspiration,” etc. “The Divine Spirit declared: If such-and-such a tribe is drawn, such-and-such a territory shall be drawn with it,” etc. Re’em, Abarbanel, and all who explained Rashi understood him to mean that the lottery assigned a larger portion to the tribe with the larger population. This, however, is not his meaning. When Rashi says, “A tribe with a large population was given a large portion,” he means that Joshua gave it a large portion, not that it received one by lot. Therefore, he continues, “Although the portions were unequal, for everything was apportioned according to the tribe’s population”—and consequently the division according to population could not have been accomplished by lot; for “to the numerous you shall give more” means that you, the person making the apportionment, shall give more—nevertheless, “the portions were assigned only by lot.” That is, the foundation of the division was established by lot, and this is the meaning of “Only by lot shall the land be divided” (ibid., 55). Rashi then explains that the lot declared: “If such-and-such a tribe is drawn, such-and-such a territory shall be drawn with it.” In other words, the lottery determined the regional boundaries, after which Joshua apportioned larger or smaller portions within that region according to the tribe’s population. The same applies to Rashi’s comment on “Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine like Reuben and Simeon; but your offspring whom you beget after them,” etc. (Genesis 48:5–6): “Although the land was divided according to the number of persons, as it is written, ‘To the numerous you shall give more,’ and each individual received an equal share, nevertheless, only these were designated as tribes.” This does not mean that the lottery divided the land according to the number of individuals—as Re’em understood, which would conflict with the ruling in Bava Batra that it was divided among the tribes. Nor does it mean that the lottery was conducted among the tribes and that each tribe received by lot a portion corresponding to the size of its population, as the other commentators understood. Rather, it means that although Joshua and the tribal heads apportioned the land according to population—and one might therefore ask what practical difference resulted from Ephraim and Manasseh being two tribes like Reuben and Simeon—Rashi answers that they were nevertheless designated as separate tribes so that each would receive its own lot in a distinct region. I have thus established this view upon firm pillars and foundations, and through it the plain meaning of the verses may readily be understood, as will be explained in each appropriate place. Ramban alone follows a different approach, against which the archers have bitterly directed their many arrows.

By lot. Here Scripture describes how the lottery was conducted; it does not discuss the apportionment according to the number of individuals.

As Hashem commanded. “Only by lot shall the land be divided.”

For Moses had given. This explains why the land was apportioned to only nine tribes and a half.

And to the Levites. This prevents the mistaken assumption that the Levites were included in the count of the twelve tribes.

For the children of Joseph were. They completed the count of twelve tribes.

And they gave no portion. Even within the land, the Levites were not given a territorial portion, but only cities in which to dwell; therefore, they are not included in the count.

As He commanded. In all the other particulars as well, they apportioned the land in accordance with the Torah’s command: “To the numerous you shall give a larger inheritance,” and the like.

Concerning me and concerning you. That is, Hashem first said (Numbers 14:22–24): “All the men who have seen My glory,” etc., “shall not see the land,” etc.; “But My servant Caleb, because he had a different spirit with him,” etc., “I will bring him into the land into which he came, and his descendants shall possess it.” This could have been understood merely to mean that Caleb would not die in the wilderness and that his descendants would inherit their portion together with the other tribes. Afterward, however, He said (ibid., 30): “You shall not enter the land,” etc., “except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.” Accordingly, since He later stated explicitly that Caleb and Joshua would enter the land, why had He already promised Caleb twice, “I will bring him into the land”? It must therefore mean that He would bring Caleb into the particular land to which he had gone—Hebron—and that his descendants would inherit Hebron. Caleb therefore recalled what Hashem had said concerning both himself and Joshua, for from this he could prove that Hashem’s earlier statement concerning Caleb specifically referred to giving him Hebron.

And I brought back word. Caleb presented four reasons why he deserved this reward. First, because he had been a faithful emissary and did not report according to what his eyes perceived, but according to the judgment of his discerning and perceptive heart, exercising his free choice to choose what was right. Thus, he says, “As it was in my heart.” Second, because others had attempted to entice him to sin, as he continues:

But my brethren made the people’s hearts melt. Yet Caleb withstood their enticements and did not fear the people. Thus, he says, “But I wholly followed” Hashem. The word hemasiv follows the Aramaic pattern of atyu chamra, “they brought wine”; according to Hebrew usage, its proper form would have been hemesiv, like natayu raglai, “my feet had almost turned aside” (Psalms 73:2). Its root is masas. Third, he deserved the reward because of the oath Moses had sworn, as he continues:

And now, behold, Hashem has kept me alive. Although forty-five years have passed and I am now eighty-five years old. Second, from the fact that:

I am still as strong today. His heart remained courageous, fearing no one; and his physical strength was likewise as my strength was then, so is my strength now. The expression “as my strength was then, so is my strength now” is like “for you are like Pharaoh” (Genesis 44:18). According to ordinary linguistic usage, however, the order should have been reversed: “As my strength is now, so was my strength then,” since the first term is always compared to the second. Rather, his strength at that earlier time had not become known until now, when he fought in the army and his might became evident. He therefore said that he estimated his strength then to have been exactly what it was now—neither less nor more. Therefore:

And now, give me this hill country. For Hashem preserved my life and maintained my strength so that I myself might dispossess its inhabitants, as Hashem had said, “And his descendants shall possess it.”

Perhaps Hashem will be with me. Grammatically, it should have said itti (“with me”) rather than oti. Alternatively, it may be understood like “But Hashem is with me like a mighty warrior” (Jeremiah 20:11), which I interpreted to mean, “Hashem is my sign”; or it may derive from the sense of firmness and strength.

Therefore it became. That is, it did not come to him as part of the regular apportionment according to population, but was given to him as a reward.

And the name of Hebron. Scripture states that giants were indeed there, for this reason it had been called Kiriath-arba.